Amplify-and-forward cooperative OFDM with multiple-relays: performance analysis and relay selection methods
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, we investigate a cooperative system with multiple relays and amplify-and-forward relaying over frequency-selective channels. To extract the available multipath diversity, we employ orthogonal frequency division multiplexing (OFDM) with precoding. Through the derivation of pairwise error probability (PEP), we demonstrate that PEP is not a simple exponential function of the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), but it includes a term that involves some power of logarithm of the SNR. If that term is ignored, the diversity order is given by the summation of the channel length in the direct link and the minimum of channel lengths in each relaying link confirmed by simulation results. Based on the PEP expression, we also propose two relay selection strategies; one is on a per-subcarrier basis and the other is on an all-subcarrier basis. Our simulation results indicate that both strategies result in performance improvements although the per-subcarrier method performs better.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it